If the media are so liberal, where are all the Union-friendly news shows? I see lots of pro-big business & pro-investor shows. Where are the shows for worker interests? And, other than MSNBC, where are the pro-Union guests? I see lots of guests making the pro-corporate, anti-union arguments. Where are all the union defenders in the "liberal" media?

If the media are so liberal, why do they keep focusing on debt/deficit/austerity and not the arguments against austerity that all the liberal economists are making?

If the media are so liberal, why did they ignore the 2011 Tar Sands protests in DC and the hundreds of arrested protesters, including a renowned NASA scientist?

If the media are so liberal, why have they completely ignored the controversy surrounding the drilling of the Alberta Tar Sands?

If the media are so liberal, why did they parrot Bush's link between Iraq & 9/11, and his claim that Iraq still had WMD's, while ignoring the many experts who could disprove these claims?

If the media are so liberal, why did they cheerlead us into the Iraq war, while censoring those who opposed it?

If the media are so liberal, why did they virtually ignore the largest anti-war protest in the history of mankind on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003, but have since given plenty of mostly uncritical coverage of much smaller Tea Party protests?

If the media are so liberal, why did they give so much free publicity to Paul Ryan's "brave", "heroic" budget plan...while they ignored the Progressive Caucus's People's Budget?

If the media are so liberal, why did even Bush's own press secretary think the media was too deferential to him?

If the media are so liberal, why did they run the fake ACORN voter fraud stories & the faked ACORN video stings, then virtually ignore it when ACORN was vindicated and proven innocent of both?

If the media are so liberal, then why do the "liberal" TV stations gladly air tons of liberal-bashing campaign ads by right-wing groups?

If the media are so liberal, why do they keep covering-up for Wall Street and hiding the rampant criminality there?

If the media are so liberal, why was their coverage of right-winger Margaret Thatcher's controversial legacy so fawning and one-sided?

If the media are so liberal, why did they ignore proven and admitted GOP election fraud?

If the media are so liberal, why is there a virtual news blackout of the Trans-Pacific Partnership controversy?

If the media are so liberal, why did they virtually ignore the biggest climate change rally in US history on Februray 17?

Since then, I've seen plenty of right-wing guests on the news urging Obama to approve Keystone and criticizing him for delaying it (even just this morning on MSNBC, with zero argument from the host!), but nobody to explain why there's a huge movement against it.

If the media are so liberal, why did they constantly demonize leftist Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, even promoting anti-Chavez disinfo?

If the media are so liberal, why do they treat far-right views as mainstream?

If the media are so liberal, why was coverage of Occupy Wall Street mostly hostile or dismissive?

And if you try to argue that all my sources above are "liberal biased", you'd just be proving my point. If the truly liberal alternative media are the only ones pointing these things out, then obviously the mainstream corporate media isn't very liberal

What does the board think of this discussion of liberalism. After reading this I am more confused than ever about what is "LIBERALISM" . According to this author it depends what age and what region and what country you are talking from.

For example, does this make any sense at all of what we think liberalism is in this country in this day and age:

"Unlike conservatives, who fear change, liberals welcome it because they believe that changing societies can be stable. Unlike socialists, who think the advent of Utopia needs to be administered, liberals aim to create the conditions in which each person can thrive in his or her own way unburdened by dictatorship."

If you ask me I think of liberals as just the opposite. That is more akin to statism.

Anyway, please read on and get confused:

*****Liberal thought

On the barricades

An eloquent study of a belief under siege May 24th 2014 | From the print edition

Liberalism: The Life of an Idea. By Edmund Fawcett.Princeton University Press; 468 pages; $35 and £24.95. Buy from Amazon.co.uk (ISBN=unknown)

SOMETIMES it seems as if liberalism is slowly caving in. Western democracies are battered by partisanship and populism. Inequality is undermining social cohesion. Governments are unconvincingly shoring up expensive welfare states that have failed to match their promise. Meanwhile, the running is being made by places such as Turkey, which has an intolerant majority, and China and Russia, where power cannot be contested. “Liberalism” by Edmund Fawcett is not only a gripping piece of intellectual history, it also equips the reader to understand today’s threats—and how they might be withstood.

“Liberal” in the vocabulary of Mr Fawcett, for many years on the staff of The Economist, does not mean Democratic in the American sense, fanatically free-market in the French, or bearded and sandals-wearing in the British. Instead liberalism is a protean set of beliefs—in progress, scepticism towards authority and respect for individuals—that have been central to the formation of modern Western democracy. Neither is Mr Fawcett setting out to write directly about today. Instead, he traces the evolution of liberalism from its roots in the Enlightenment. The result is a scrapbook, assembled out of thumbnail biographies and historical vignettes, interleaved with philosophical argument and snippets of economics. Mr Fawcett’s erudition and his voluminous list of sources attest to a lifetime’s engagement with liberalism, both in the academy and at the hustings.

Though the sketches are sometimes tantalisingly brief, the scrapbook method gives the book two distinctive traits. One is that France and Germany feature almost as much as Britain and America. John Stuart Mill and James Madison have to share a berth with François Guizot, the French statesman and historian who, long before Lord Acton, articulated the liberal conviction that power corrupts, and Franz Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch, the German who founded the first credit unions. Mr Fawcett tears the blinkers off the view that liberal thought was essentially Anglo-Saxon—and that, correspondingly, France and Germany even today are not truly liberal.

The other distinction, following from this, is the book’s sheer scope, which ranges from monetary theory to social Darwinism and from the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the contrasts between anarchy and dissent. Mostly, these juxtapositions shed light on the adaptability of liberalism—of how, as Mr Fawcett writes, it has “no Marx-Engels Standard Edition”. Occasionally, though, the bedfellows jar; it is odd to find the British Conservative Michael Oakeshott in the same tent as the French Marxist Jean-Paul Sartre.

Adaptability is one reason for thinking that liberalism can withstand today’s challenges. Mr Fawcett argues that it was born not just out of a desire for liberty, but also to cope with the violent revolutions unleashed at the end of the 18th century. Unlike conservatives, who fear change, liberals welcome it because they believe that changing societies can be stable. Unlike socialists, who think the advent of Utopia needs to be administered, liberals aim to create the conditions in which each person can thrive in his or her own way unburdened by dictatorship.

However, as liberalism has spread, these impulses have become silted over. What remains is often a diminished combination of elections and a narrow, market-based version of freedom. Mr Fawcett provides a timely reminder that liberalism is much richer—more concerned with those who lose elections than those who win them, wary of concentrated power wherever it may be found, and committed to the intrinsic worth of every individual.

Liberalism is indeed under siege. Those who would fortify the walls would do well to study the foundations. Mr Fawcett’s book offers an admirable archaeology.

I don't see where the details of how this transpired were reported in the mainstream media, NY Times, for example. I google the details and see nothing but right wing sites. I'm bet NYT etc covered the President alleging it was a "phony scandal" with precision. How about covering the evidence that proves him wrong?

****“The administration’s crucial and contradictory statistics are validated the usual way, by official repetition; Joe Biden has been heard from. The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous.”****

Article below.

-----------------

George Will dumped: Prize winning author George Will dumped after column on rape

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch told their readers that they would no longer run George Will's column, calling his latest post about sexual assault "offensive and inaccurate." Was this right--or should he be free to voice his opinion as a columnist?Play

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch told their readers that they would no longer run George Will's column, calling his latest post about sexual assault "offensive and inaccurate." Was this right--or should he be free to voice his opinion as a columnist?

June 21, 2014

American newspaper columnist George Will is a journalist, author and Pulitzer Prize recipient. The Wall Street Journal once called him “perhaps the most powerful journalist in America.” He’s also out of a job, at least in syndication with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who dumped the conservative political writer for an incendiary piece he wrote about sexual assaults on our nation's college campuses.

In his column, carried originally by Will’s employer The Washington Post, the 73-year-old author said colleges and universities “are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.”

As a case in point, Will linked and discussed a rape charge out of Swarthmore College in Philadelphia. A student was in her dorm with a guy that she’d already been sleeping with for about three months. Quoting PhillyMag.com, Will wrote:

“They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. “I basically said, ‘No, I don’t want to have sex with you.’ And then he said, ‘OK, that’s fine’ and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.”

Will said that the Obama administration is “riding to the rescue of ‘sexual assault’ victims” like the Swarthmore student, who filed a rape charge six weeks after the incident above. Will went on to write:

“The administration’s crucial and contradictory statistics are validated the usual way, by official repetition; Joe Biden has been heard from. The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous.”

Will claims that “Education Department lawyers disregard pesky arithmetic and elementary due process” and adopt a minimal standard of evidence. Will also mocked out campus “trigger warnings” – a standard of speech designed to protect sexual assault victims from having their encounter brought back up in their minds. To Will, trigger warnings “swaddle students in a ‘safe,’ ‘supportive,’ ‘unthreatening’ environment -- intellectual comfort for the intellectually dormant.”

He closes by writing:

“What government is inflicting on colleges and universities, and what they are inflicting on themselves, diminishes their autonomy, resources, prestige and comity. Which serves them right. They have asked for this by asking for progressivism.”

Will’s full column can be read here.

Tony Messenger, the St. Louis Dispatch editorial editors, said he had already been considering dumping Will from the paper, but that Will’s column on rape “made the decision easier.”

“The column was offensive and inaccurate; we apologize for publishing it,” Messenger wrote.

Since the column first appeared back on June 6, a petition at MoveOn.org has pulled in close to 46,000 signatures. The petition is calling for the Post to fire George Will. The co-authors of the petition, who are both from the women’s activist group UltraViolet, wrote:

“George Will makes his living writing columns that many people disagree with. But his latest column has gone too far. Rape is a serious crime--accusing women of making it up and arguing schools shouldn't be addressing sexual assault puts both women and men at risk. By publishing George Will's piece, The Washington Post is amplifying some of the most insidious lies that perpetuate rape culture. It's not just wrong – it's dangerous.”

Other petitions have been thrown up online, and even state senators are weighing in with their rebukes of George Will. Thus far, the Post is standing by Will, calling his column “within the realm of reasonable debate.”

Will is not going down without taking a few swings however. In a discussion on C-SPAN yesterday, seen here in a YouTube upload, Will lashed out at his critics, saying that “indignation is the default position of certain people in civic discourse. They go from a standing start to fury in about 30 seconds.”

Will blames the Internet for creating a free-for-all forum of name-callers who cannot read, write or think on their own:

“I think it has something to do with the Internet, a wonderful thing. It has lowered, indeed erased, the barriers to entry into public discourse. That’s a good thing. Unfortunately, the downside to this, and there’s a downside to everything, is that among the barriers to entry that have been reduced is you don’t have to be able to read, write or think. You can just come

WASHINGTON (AP) — When the government updates its estimate Wednesday of how the U.S. economy fared last quarter, the number is pretty sure to be ugly. Horrible even.

US economy shrank at steep 2.9 percent rate in Q1 Associated Press U.S. economy contracts sharply, consumer spending revised down Reuters Economy in U.S. Shrank in First Quarter by Most in Five Years Bloomberg U.S. Economy Shrinks by Most in Five Years The Wall Street Journal U.S. consumer spending misses expectations on weak services Reuters

The economy likely shrank at an annual rate of nearly 2 percent in the January-March quarter, economists estimate. That would be its bleakest performance since early 2009 in the depths of the Great Recession.

So why aren't economists, businesses or investors likely to panic?

Because most agree that the economy last quarter was depressed by temporary factors — particularly the blast of Arctic chill and snow that shuttered factories, disrupted shipping and kept Americans away from shopping malls and auto dealerships.

Since then, the picture has brightened. Solid hiring, growth in manufacturing and surging auto sales have lifted the economy at a steady if still-unspectacular pace. That said, sluggish pay growth and a stumbling housing rebound have restrained the expansion. But the economy's recovery continues.

"We had a very bad first quarter, but the first quarter is history," says Craig Alexander, chief economist at TD Bank. "It doesn't tell you where the economy is going, which is in a direction of more strength."

Wednesday's report will be the government's third and final estimate of the economy's first-quarter performance. Here are five reasons economists are looking past last quarter's dismal showing and five reasons the economy still isn't back to full health.

If the economy really was tumbling back into recession, you'd see businesses laying off workers — or at least clamping down on hiring. That isn't happening. Employers are adding jobs at the fastest pace in 15 years. That's a pretty clear sign that they see last quarter's troubles as temporary. And layoffs are down. The number of people seeking unemployment benefits, a proxy for layoffs, has fallen 10 percent since the first week of January.

With summer in full swing, it might be hard to remember the brutal winter. But the cold damaged the economy last quarter. Spending on autos, furniture, clothes and other goods rose at the slowest pace in nearly three years. With snow blanketing building sites, home construction plummeted in January. Alexander estimates that winter weather slowed economic activity by about 1.5 percentage points on an annual basis.

Yet the impact didn't reflect fundamental problems in the economy. Americans who postponed car purchases during winter simply bought cars during spring instead. Auto sales jumped to a nine-year high in May.

Another drag on growth last quarter was probably also temporary: Companies sharply cut back on their restocking of goods. That wasn't unexpected. It occurred after companies had aggressively ramped up restocking in the second half of last year. The slowdown in the January-March quarter reduced annual growth by 1.6 percentage points, the government said. With growth strengthening since spring began, businesses are restocking at a faster rate again. Inventories grew 0.6 percent in April, the most in six months.

Last quarter's economy will look bleak in part because the government needs to correct a mistaken assumption. It previously figured that health spending soared last quarter after many Americans obtained insurance on the Obama administration's health care exchanges. But when data was released this month, there was no sign of such additional spending.

As a result, consumer spending probably grew at a 2.3 percent annual rate last quarter, not the 3.1 percent previously estimated, according to JPMorgan Chase. Consumers have accelerated spending since then: Retail sales surged in March by the most in four years — and again in April and May, boosted by auto purchases. This month, consumer confidence reached a six-year high. That's a hint that spending will further strengthen.

After slipping in the first quarter, partly because of weather-related disruptions, factories are making more machinery, cars, furniture and computers. They're hiring and giving workers more overtime, which translates into bigger paychecks.

Jason Anderson of CertainTeed, a manufacturer in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, said sales of the company's roofing shingles, siding, insulation and other building products have rebounded since last quarter. The company is building a 150,000-square-foot factory in Jonesburg, Missouri.

"We're still optimistic about the growth trajectory of the United States," Anderson says. "All our plans are still on track."

___

Most analysts think the economy is growing at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the current quarter and will expand at a 3 percent rate for the rest of the year. The Federal Reserve foresees a similar improvement.

Still, that pace would leave growth for the full year at about 2.25 percent, only slightly above last year's 1.9 percent. And despite all the positives, it's worth keeping in mind that a truly robust economy wouldn't be thrown off so much by severe weather.

Here are signs that the economy still hasn't achieved full health:

At the top of most economists' worry list is housing. Rising home prices and higher mortgage rates have put homes out of reach for many would-be buyers. Even for people willing and able to buy, there aren't enough homes for sale. All of which has slowed purchases, which fell 5 percent in May compared with 12 months earlier.

Builders started work in May on just over 1 million homes at an annual rate, below the pace of the final three months of last year. The slowdown translates into fewer construction jobs, smaller commissions for Realtors and reduced sales of furniture, appliances and garden supplies.

Yet there are signs that the housing market is stabilizing. Price gains are slowing. And mortgage rates have dipped. That could boost sales in coming months.

In fact, data released this week suggested that this may already be happening. Sales of new and existing homes jumped in May.

Another threat: Middle East turmoil, particularly in Iraq, could cause oil and gas prices to spike. That would leave consumers with less money to spend on other goods and could limit growth. Crude oil prices hit a nine-month high Thursday. Gas prices averaged $3.68 Monday, about a dime higher than a year ago.

STAGNANT WAGES

While layoffs have fallen back to pre-recession levels and hiring is steady, the economy still isn't delivering what most Americans probably want most: A decent raise. Average hourly pay, adjusted for inflation, slipped 0.1 percent in May compared with a year earlier. It's still slightly lower than when the recession ended in June 2009. Flat pay limits consumer spending, which drives about 70 percent of economic activity.

LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT

Despite the pickup in hiring, 3.4 million Americans have been out of work for six months or longer — more than double the pre-recession figure. Some may find jobs as the economy recovers. Others will give up searching and return to school, retire early or care for relatives. Economists worry that the longer people are out of work, the more their skills erode. Having many former workers permanently frozen out of the job market can slow growth. Last week, Fed Chair Janet Yellen expressed concern that long-term unemployment could create "permanent damage" to both those suffering through it and the broader economy.

The unemployment rate has fallen to 6.3 percent, a five-year low, from 10 percent in October 2009. But much of the drop has occurred because many people have given up on their job searches, retired or stayed in school and never started looking. The government counts people as unemployed only if they're actively seeking work. The rate has tumbled in large part because many of those out of work aren't being counted as unemployed, not because hiring has soared. The percentage of Americans working or looking for work has reached a 35-year low.

“Three years ago the Supreme Court threw away decades of precedent and watered down the religious liberty of all Americans. . . . By radically changing the ground rules for deciding claims of religious liberty, the Court alarmed organized religion, civil liberties organizations of all stripes and Senators as different in outlook as Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Orrin Hatch of Utah. . . . The Religious Freedom Restoration Act reasserts a broadly accepted American concept of giving wide latitude to religious practices that many might regard as odd or unconventional. The bill deserves passage. . . . With the Restoration Act, Congress asserts its own interest in protecting religious liberty. It’s a welcome antidote to the official insensitivity to religion the Court spawned in 1990.”–editorial, New York Times, Oct. 25, 1993

“The Supreme Court’s deeply dismaying decision on Monday in the Hobby Lobby case swept aside accepted principles of corporate law and religious liberty. . . . It was the first time the court has allowed commercial business owners to deny employees a federal benefit to which they are entitled by law based on the owners’ religious beliefs, and it was a radical departure from the court’s history of resisting claims for religious exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability.”–editorial, New York Times, July 1, 2014

She appears to be auditioning (again) for an administration position. Or is ABC News part of the administration? Too bad that level of partisanship is accepted in the so-called mainstream. He handled it beautifully.

I would think that as a rule in an interview with a dignitary, the Governor of Texas for example, the journalist would spend half the time letting them get their message out and half the time challenging them back with the tough, critical questioning, instead of all attack, all the time. If they don't have a message worth hearing, then don't invite them on the program.

A congressman's recent criticism of Al-Jazeera America's Qatari owners for funding of Hamas has renewed questions about the network's journalistic integrity.Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also slammed the network's coverage of the latest round of fighting between Hamas and Israel during his July 9 appearance on the network.

"Every one of those rockets [fired by Hamas into Israeli cities] is a war crime, almost every one," Sherman said, noting that Hamas seeks to hit civilian targets. "Of course it's a war crime committed by Hamas. And of course the owners of this TV network help fund Hamas."

Allegations have floated for years about members of the Qatari royal family meddling in editorial decisions of Al-Jazeera's Doha-based English-language sister network. A State Department cable from December 2009 stated that Qatar was using Al-Jazeera as "an informal tool … of foreign policy."

This lack of editorial independence came into focus in 2011, when Qatari superiors ordered the re-editing of a two-minute video package that appeared on Al-Jazeera English. Qatari network officials modified the segment to ensure that comments by Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani at the United Nations led the segment, even though staffers judged Al-Thani's comments as being less important than other speakers that day, such as President Barack Obama.

Al-Jazeera America strives to publicly distance itself from its Qatari parents and portray its product as "unbiased, fact-based … in-depth journalism." A look at its coverage of the current Gaza conflict, however, calls its claim of being unbiased into question.

The network's pro-Hamas slant has been exhibited in its disproportionate emphasis on deaths of Palestinian civilians without almost any critical mention of Hamas's intentional use of human shields – considered a war crime under international law.

Similarly, Al-Jazeera America reporters have made scant reference to the terrorists' use of densely populated areas to fire rockets or of Israel's warning civilians to leave targeted areas prior to bombing.

For example, a July 15 segment of its program "Consider This" focused on the plight of Palestinian children in Gaza. Moderator Wajahat Ali omitted any reference to how the terrorist group endangers children's lives. Ali repeated the mantra about Gaza's population density without a single reference to how Hamas uses mosques and civilian buildings to launch rockets.

During his appearance on the network, Sherman also slammed Al-Jazeera America for dismissing Hamas' threat to Israeli civilians because their rockets had not killed anyone at a kindergarten in Israel.

"… [Y]ou on this TV station say, 'well maybe it's not a war crime because it's not successful, the rocket didn't hit a kindergarten – it was aimed at a kindergarten but it didn't hit a kindergarten – so then it's not reprehensible,'" Sherman said.

U.S. officials have harbored concerns about the Qatari royal family for years and even interceded to stop some of the money it sent to Hamas.

A confidential State Department cable from February 2006 describes former Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, who founded Al-Jazeera by a royal decree in 1996, as a "a big friend of Hamas." He notably pledged $400 million to Hamas's cash-strapped government in Gaza during an October 2012 state visit. However, recent reports indicate that the U.S. blocked the transfer of money to Hamas.

Back in 2006, Al-Thani gave $50 million to the then Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.

Al-Thani may have abdicated in 2013 in favor of his son, but the change has not lessened Qatar's financial commitment to Hamas. Qatar's Prime Minister Abdullah bin Naser bin Khalifa Al Thani announced in June that Qatar would give Hamas $60 million to pay the salaries of its civil servants in Gaza.

That kind of open support frustrates American diplomats.

"Officials should make known USG concerns about the financial support to Hamas by Qatari charitable organizations and our concerns about the moral support Hamas receives from Yousef Al-Qaradawi [a popular Muslim Brotherhood cleric living in Qatar]," U.S. Ambassador to Qatar Joseph E. Lebaron wrote in a 2009 secret cable to Washington. He also made clear "high-level Qatari political support is needed" to curtail terror financing.

Hamas received much of its money in Qatar through charitable foundations or popular committees, Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal told Al-Hayat in 2003. Meshaal noted that Qatari TV occasionally organized days when it would collect donations to assist the intifada happening at the time.

Qatar twice provided sanctuary to Meshaal after he wore out his welcome elsewhere. Jordan kicked him out in 1999, and he had to leave Damascus in 2011 after relations between Hamas and the Assad regime soured over the Syrian civil war. Qatar has allowed Hamas to maintain offices in Doha for years.

Qatar Charity, formerly the Qatar Charitable Society and also controlled by the Qatari royal family, has long been suspected of maintaining close ties with Hamas. A secret cable from July 2003 suggests that the charity likely had ties to Hamas. The charity collaborated with the Hamas Ministry of Education 2009 to build schools, according to the Daily Mail. Such schools indoctrinate children with pro-jihadist propaganda.

Osama bin Laden discussed Qatar Charity in 1993 as an important fundraising source for al-Qaida – underscoring its long history of funding terrorism.

Another example of Qatar's complicity with Hamas fundraising has been in its allowing Qaradawi, who heads the Union of Good, to operate within its borders. Treasury Department officials stated in a November 2008 press release that Hamas's leadership created Union of Good in 2000 shortly before the start of the second Intifada to "facilitate the transfer of funds to Hamas."

Qaradawi has hosted a program on Al-Jazeera's Arabic channel where he has advocated Palestinian suicide bombings.

Al-Jazeera America came into being after the Al-Jazeera Media Network purchased Current TV from former Vice President Al Gore and other investors in January 2013. Worries about Qatar using Al-Jazeera America as a propaganda tool surfaced almost immediately.

Al-Jazeera America interim CEO Ehab Al Shihabi fought back hard against those accusations in May. "I am not Qatar. I don't represent Qatar," Al Shihabi told the Paley Center for Media. "I am, you know, separate from Qatar government. I took a grant like what [the] BBC has."

"And the whole concept exercise really is built up on the asset of Al-Jazeera Media Network," he added, "and if I'm not successful to build up on that asset that means I am not a right business person."

Other than Al Shihabi, all of the network's top executives are Americans who previously worked for American networks such as CNN or ABC.

Questions about Al-Jazeera America's editorial independence and slant persist, despite those American hires.

Temple University journalism professor Christopher Harper, a veteran reporter who has covered the Middle East since 1979, noted in a column following the network's launch last August that Al-Jazeera America was not about news, and that its product reminded him of Soviet propaganda. Al-Jazeera America gave Qatar a "seat at the political table in the United States," Harper wrote, adding that it was not likely to make money in the already crowded cable news market.

He has proven correct thus far. Its viewership has been practically non-existent, averaging 15,000 viewers during prime time.

Al-Jazeera America's uncritical coverage of the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)'s effort to weaken the terrorism watch list is one example of the slanted coverage. The FBI cut off contact with CAIR in 2008, based on evidence it uncovered tying CAIR and its founders to a Hamas support network. A federal judge also ruled in 2009 that the evidence established "at least a prima facie case as to CAIR's involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas."

Al-Jazeera America anchor John Siegenthaler Jr. interviewed CAIR-NY board member Lamis Deek on June 25 concerning a federal judge's ruling that the watch list was unconstitutional. Siegenthaler never asked Deek about the national-security considerations stemming from the judge's ruling and seemed to sympathize with CAIR's position.

"I think it is simply providing one side of a story. It doesn't rise to Soviet propaganda, but it certainly is propaganda for one side," Harper told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

A July 10 broadcast of the network's program "Inside Story" hosted by longtime former National Public Radio announcer Ray Suarez provides another example of this slant.Suarez sought to discuss the failure of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, except for one critical part of the story – someone to present Israel's perspective.Peace would be possible, Suarez and his three guests agreed, if only Israel were to cooperate with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

None of the guests, including Gershon Baskin, head of the Israel-Palestinian Think Tank; Aziz Abu Sarah of the Middle East Justice & Development Initiative; or former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Dan Kurtzer, made any reference to Hamas' refusal to renounce violence or its commitment to Israel's destruction, nor provocations by members of the Palestinian Authority calling Israel the occupied "1948 lands," nor Abbas's statements of solidarity with Hamas as far back as 2009.

Suarez noted that Baskin had past contacts with Hamas and proceeded to ask him how he would handle peace negotiations with the terrorist group, regardless of the fact that Hamas's charter and recent statements show it has no desire for peace with Israel. The host then referred to Palestinian terrorism as the "armed struggle" – a term Hamas leaders use to describe their terror attacks against Israelis.

Abu Sarah suggested that Palestinians should consider a one-state solution where Palestinians and Jews would live side by side in the same state – something he said "would mean the end of the Jewish state."

Suarez's political bias has been well-known for years. He narrated an April 2007 PBS documentary, "America at a Crossroads: The Muslim Americans," which dismissed CAIR's links to terrorists as the work of "a small band of conservative and pro-Israeli groups, who accuse it of having an extremist agenda."

"There have also been claims that some members of CAIR have terrorist links. But there have been no charges linked to CAIR itself," Suarez said.

Information about CAIR's extremism was readily available at the time the documentary aired. These included CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad's 1994 endorsement of Hamas; convictions of CAIR leaders such as Randal "Ismail" Royer and Ghassan Elashi; and its opposition to terrorism investigations.

"Al-Jazeera's entry into the U.S. media market, in violation of the law, was tantamount to giving American broadcast facilities during World War II to 'Tokyo Rose' and 'Axis Sally,'" Kincaid said. "Its broadcasts in the U.S. are not being labeled by cable and satellite providers as foreign propaganda under the Foreign Agents Registration Act."In addition, the deal was not reported to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) of the Treasury Department, in violation of the law."

Clearly, the terror ties of Al-Jazeera America's Qatari owners should be further examined by U.S. regulatory authorities and members of Congress because many questions remain to be answered regarding the network's independence from foreign control.

"Gamechanger Salon is comprised of “experienced change makers from different ‘worlds’ of the movement to share stories, honest reflections, interesting articles, and provocative ideas on how we build a stronger, more coordinated, more game-changing movement for the 21st Century” according to the policy manual"

Who the hell are these people and who asked them to change our "world" and what the hell are they to decide what is best for the rest of us.

Again the disease *narcissistic liberalism*. They are so impressed with their own intelligence. They know better then most in the world and they are going to fix it. The ignorant "masses" just don't know better. We need their help. We just don't know it.

"Gamechanger Salon is comprised of “experienced change makers from different ‘worlds’ of the movement to share stories, honest reflections, interesting articles, and provocative ideas on how we build a stronger, more coordinated, more game-changing movement for the 21st Century” according to the policy manual"

Who the hell are these people and who asked them to change our "world" and what the hell are they to decide what is best for the rest of us.

Again the disease *narcissistic liberalism*. They are so impressed with their own intelligence. They know better then most in the world and they are going to fix it. The ignorant "masses" just don't know better. We need their help. We just don't know it.

Of course. A rapid defense on Huffington Post. Could anyone imagine the outcry if a Conservative slipped and said what was on her mind about a guest. Taking this into context one must remember that her father is a definite Jew hater from the Carter years. Perhaps she will apologize and of course bygones will be bygones. As long as she is a liberal we know her heart is in the right place :

Nothing like giving a failed NSA from a failed Presidency a chance to give his worthless anti-Semitic (as he always has been) opinion. So his daughters remark "morning Jew" was not just a slip of the tongue. Here he goes off again:

Brzezinski: Netanyahu 'making a very serious mistake'

Discussion in 'Middle East & Africa' started by Hazzy997, Yesterday at 4:29 AM. Yesterday at 4:29 AM #1

Fareed speaks with former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski about Israel's military operation in Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on CNN told Wolf Blitzer that the invasion of Gaza was a strategy to demilitarize Gaza, explaining the use of force. But it has been quite a robust use of force…Do you think that it is going to succeed, the Israeli strategy?

No, I think he is making a very serious mistake. When Hamas in effect accepted the notion of participation in the Palestinian leadership, it in effect acknowledged the determination of that leadership to seek a peaceful solution with Israel. That was a real option. They should have persisted in that.

Instead Netanyahu launched the campaign of defamation against Hamas, seized on the killing of three innocent Israeli kids to immediately charge Hamas with having done it without any evidence, and has used that to stir up public opinion in Israel in order to justify this attack on Gaza, which is so lethal.

I think he is isolating Israel. He's endangering its longer-range future. And I think we ought to make it very clear that this is a course of action which we thoroughly disapprove and which we do not support and which may compel us and the rest of the international community to take some steps of legitimizing Palestinian aspirations perhaps in the U.N.

Much has been made of the lopsided coverage of the Gaza conflict, with reporters being chastised for allowing either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian biases to seep through into their reporting and in some cases their tweets and Facebook posts. Questions like, “Does reporting death tolls convey a sympathy for the Palestinians?” float through newsrooms and editorial meetings, with few good, concrete answers emerging, and reporters thousands of miles away in the field unmoved by editorial handwringing anyhow. This is lamentable but in some ways inevitable — the best reporters on this conflict are presumably ones who have a deep understanding of the long history and can therefore contextualize it, but that deep understanding often starts to erode objectivity. But many of the criticisms of bias — some well-founded, some questionable — ignore the most glaring example of media malfeasance that is routinely perpetrated when covering this war, which is either the result of anti-Israel bias or successful Hamas PR strategy. It boils down to three words. Time and time again you hear it on the news when discussing negotiations with Israel: “What Hamas wants...” Hamas wants a cease-fire; Hamas wants the Gaza border blockade lifted; Hamas wants their tunnels left alone; Hamas wants a Palestinian state. All these things may be true of the political arm of Hamas. But rarely is it mentioned in a news report that Hamas’ primary objective, its main goal, what it really wants and what its military arm is designed and determined to get, is the total destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jews.

Watch Here

It’s a crucial component that’s regularly left out of news reports. But any story that does not mention this among Hamas’ chief demands is not an intellectually honest or complete one. Few in the media seem to grasp this, the effect of which has been to create a gauzy and nebulous moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas that isn’t really there. Those who have understood this have had to assert it vigorously and explicitly (as I am doing here), which only highlights how pervasive the problem is. Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic writes, as if explaining it to a fifth grader, “The goal of Hama — the actual, overarching goal — is to terrorize the Jews of Israel, through mass murder, into abandoning their country. If generations of Palestinians have to be sacrificed to that goal, well, Hamas believes such sacrifices are theologically justified.” It’s truly bizarre that writers like Goldberg need to put this conflict in such stark terms. It’s not as though Hamas has been coy about their desires. In the Hamas Covenant, or charter, written in 1988, it states that its “struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious,” and calls for the “obliteration” of Israel. “The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” In 2006, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar said he dreamed of “hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it.” Later that same year, Hamas’ political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, said Hamas would never recognize the “usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem.” Hamas has intermittently, when politically helpful, tried to suggest that its enemies aren’t all Jews, just Zionist Jews who, as they see it, occupy Palestine. But it isn’t hard to find contradictions. As recently as 2012, in an August sermon, Ahmad Bahr, Deputy Speaker of the Hamas Parliament, called all Muslims to jihad: “Why? In order to annihilate those Jews.” He goes on, “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one.” In scrubbing media coverage of Hamas’ true intentions, blatant as they are, the media is giving the impression that Hamas “just” wants a few discrete demands answered like Hitler “just” wanted Poland. It isn’t biased to reflect sympathetically on Palestinian casualties, or even to question Israel’s strategies. But if the media is truly interested in covering this conflict accurately, it needs to start by acknowledging that Israeli aggression and Hamas aggression are not motivated by the same end goals. Israel wants peace. Hamas wants genocide.